Thursday, November 20, 2008

Happy World Philosophy Day!

Today's topic comes from the lovely Christen Brandt, which is cribbed from this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stm . In honor of World Philosophy Day, the article presents four philosophical questions with a short description of each. I'm only going to put up the first one, because I think it's the most inflammatory of the four, and will probably generate the most rousing debate. However, leave a comment or email me if you want to discuss any of the others, and I'll make a new thread for it. Happy debating!


1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)

If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

17 comments:

Mike said...

This question in my opinion is all about the right to life, and how far it goes. Obviously, life is the most precious thing we know of; it is the most extreme thing you can deprive somebody of. Is it right to take the life of somebody in order to save more? What is the exchange rate of a life? 1 for 1? 1 for 10? 1 for a million?

I believe that there is an exchange rate; I would gladly have taken the life of Hitler to save millions of lives. There is, however, a paradox that necessarily comes with this problem. It is an old one, dating back to ancient Greece. You can look up the original paradox, known as the Sorities Paradox, on your own, but it basically goes like this:

1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap of sand.
A heap of sand minus one grain is still a heap.
Therefore, 999,999 grains of sand is a heap.

Repeat this, until you are left with a single grain of sand. Clearly, one grain of sand is not a heap, but there is no definitive way to tell when the heap became a non-heap, just like there is no way to definitively say how many human lives are worth the loss of a single one.

Does Bill have a moral obligation to sacrifice himself for others? I don't think so. But I want to add another dimension to this dilemma and pose the question: What if Bill were a "bad" person? What if he had killed a man, and was in jail? Would he forfeit his right to self-determination and should he be forced to die to save 5 others?

Unknown said...

There are fundamental differences between these situations. In the first situation, Bill is in no danger of immediately dying. There is no reason he should have to give up his life, whether he has family and loved ones or not, to save any amount of people. That's like saying we should be able to just go through an entire population and determine which lives aren't good enough, and then kill those people so save other lives that we deem more worthy. We have no right to make that choice, we aren't God.

The second situation isn't really asking the same question as the first. In the kidnapping situation, the person you choose to kill would die anyway if you didn't kill him. You would, however, be caught having to make the terrible decision of who will be the one to die, and you will be the one to actually have to shoot him. That brings up a question of whether it would be better to have directly murdered one person, or to know that six others died because of you. It would be understandable for any person to make either choice.

The final situation is more similar to the first, but the blood is not directly on your hands. Assuming these are all random people you know nothing about, it would only make sense to move the train to only kill one person rather than five. This is still different from the situation with Bill, though. The singular man is still tied to the track. Its not like he is being pulled off of the street and told that he needs to take the place of the other five simply because his life isn't as worthwhile as theirs.

Now if Bill were a murderer, the situation is a no-brainer. He's taken another life and likely doesn't deserve to live anyway. If his death can save others, it should. Perhaps a much more interesting situation though, would be the following: Bill is an incredibly generous, caring, funny, likable man who enjoys life and seems to be great friends with just about everyone. The other five people - in any of the above situations - don't really have any good friends and have no close family. They don't have particularly likable personalities, and some would even describe them as "cold". They're generally selfish and aren't always very nice to others. All the same, they still have lives, careers, and interests. Then what do you do?

Mike Ruff said...

The Non-Aggression principle provides a simple solution to this problem.

Essentially, all rights are property rights. Humans, by virtue of their existence as sapient beings, own themselves--their bodies and their minds. By logical extension, they also own the products of their bodies and their minds--that is, their labor and their thoughts. But the latter is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Therefore, as Bill is the owner of his body (and thus all the components thereof), no one but he has the right to his organs (without his consent) for any reason--no matter how many lives it could potentially save. Other people's needs do not constitute a mortgage on Bill's life.

However, it is possible for Bill to be someone who has, in some fashion, negated his right to his property--for example, if Bill committed an act of initiatory aggression against another individual, he would owe that individual restitution. If he killed that individual, he would owe restitution to the estate of that individual. Therefore, one could logically and morally argue that if Bill had committed murder, his body (and life) could be considered forfeit to the estate of his victim(s).

I'll cut this here, to eagerly await the incoming fire. :)

DA TRUF! said...

Haha, I saw that on your wall and thought it was pretty interesting.

Anyway, it's a simple EV problem.

Option 1 - Kill Bill (LOL)
End 1 life, save 5 lives = Net +4 lives.

Option 2 - Let Bill Live
End 5 lives, save 1 life = Net -4 lives.

Clearly option 1 is the most +EV course, and anyone who would choose option 2 lacks the ability to think rationally and with emotional detachment.

Think of it this way:
If you choose option 1, one person WILL die, and 5 WILL be saved from death.

If you choose option 2, 5 people WILL die and 1 person WILL be saved from death.

Again, clearly option 1 is far superior to option 2.

Anonymous said...

I am most in agreement with chris. The situations are not similar, and either way, each one involves a moral decision. But I must disagree with "Da Truf"- i think a cost-benefit analysis ignores the moral implications of the situations. Emotional attachment is one thing, but it is a deeply moral problem that gets at the roots of what you believe about human rights.

Now in the train situation, where someone has to die either way because the train cannot be stopped, I think most people would say it is better to have fewer people die.

Unknown said...

Its not a simple problem, because Bill is originally in no danger of death. If you decide to let the other people die and him live, you're not saving him from death, you're just allowing him to continue his life as it is his right to do.

That's why the two comparisons in the original post aren't accurate. In the case with the kidnapper and the case with the train, someone will die no matter what, so it is a matter of saving the most people you can.

In the actual question, however, you would be taking life from someone (Bill) who has every right to continue living.

If you really want to look at it like a math problem, why not look at it like this:

Why don't we just take one of the dying people (the man who needs a new heart for instance) and kill him and use all of his other organs? He will die anyway, and this way you still "save" 4 people without having to kill a healthy person.

I don't necessarily agree with that proposal but it makes a lot more sense than trying to argue that a healthy man should give his life to save the sick.

DA TRUF! said...

"
Now in the train situation, where someone has to die either way because the train cannot be stopped, I think most people would say it is better to have fewer people die."

In the original situation, someone HAS to die. If you don't kill Bill, the other 5 have to die. If you don't save the other 5, Bill has to die. You can't arrive at a result in which no one will die.

If you choose to let Bill live, you are choosing to kill five others.

Christen said...

Here's a question:

What if Bill was going to on and find a cure for cancer? You'd be responsible for not just one death, but the deaths of potentially millions of people - not just 5.

If you look past that and only at the morality issue, is it morally sound to allow 6 people to die, when you could have saved 5? Does picking up a gun and shooting Bill make you a morally strong person, or a morally weak person for committing direct murder?

Anonymous said...

In the second situation, where you have the option of killing 1 and letting the others go free or having all six die, there is a significant variable in the problem that i think cannot be ignored- the person who poses the problem to you. If you decide it is morally right to kill one and let the other live, you are banking on the possibility that the one who posed the problem to you will keep his word, and has the power and authority to carry out his promise. In the end, if you kill the one, you are guilty of murder. There is the possibility that if you kill the one he may still kill the others, in which case you are still guilty of murder, even though you played his game. But if you reject his terms as valid (because he is the one making the decision to kill the others, not you), only he is guilty of murder.

This is my opinion, however. I wouldn't expect everyone to be comfortable with that answer.

Christen said...

But then you'd stand there and watch the innocents die, knowing that you could have saved the majority of them. Are you innocent, then?

Unknown said...

da truff, I don't really know what question you were reading, but Bill doesn't die if you choose to let the others die. He's a healthy man. Obviously, everyone dies eventually, but he's a man in perfect health right now.

And why didn't you respond to my much more logical idea in which you kill one of the dying people to save the other 4.

Unknown said...

And if you choose to let Bill live, you're not choosing to killing the other 5, you're choosing to allow them to continue dying. If you save them, you ARE killing Bill.

DA TRUF! said...

"da truff, I don't really know what question you were reading, but Bill doesn't die if you choose to let the others die. He's a healthy man."

What I meant to say was that if you choose to let Bill live, the sick five die, so someone has to die in either scenario.

"And why didn't you respond to my much more logical idea in which you kill one of the dying people to save the other 4."

Well for one, there was nothing in the article to suggest that this was a feasible option. And even if it was, it is essentially the same as killing Bill; you are killing one to save 5. Whether or not the one killed was sick is irrelevant, since their lives still have the same value (more on this point later).

"
What if Bill was going to on and find a cure for cancer? You'd be responsible for not just one death, but the deaths of potentially millions of people - not just 5.

If you look past that and only at the morality issue, is it morally sound to allow 6 people to die, when you could have saved 5? Does picking up a gun and shooting Bill make you a morally strong person, or a morally weak person for committing direct murder?"

The first point obviously goes both ways. We were given no additional information about any of the people involved, other than Bill, who we were told had no friends or family. So it is just as likely that if you save one of the five sick people, he/she will find a cure for cancer than it is that Bill will. In fact, by saving 5 instead of 1, you're 5 times more likely to save the discoverer of a cure for cancer, since each person is a random person!

Back to what I was saying before, this is a very simple problem if you approach it logically and rationally. Since each person's life is assumed to have the same value, since they're all random people, saving 5 random lives is more valuable than saving one. In fact, you could argue that since Bill has no friends or family, his life is less valuable than 5 "random" people. Obviously, additional information about each person would affect the decision, since it would affect the value of each person's life.

Obviously this is an unfair decision for any one person to have to make. However, once you have been forced to make the decision, you are forced to "play God" without any choice in the matter. If, by shooting Bill, you are saving the lives of 5 others, then yes, I firmly believe you have made the moral choice.

" And if you choose to let Bill live, you're not choosing to killing the other 5, you're choosing to allow them to continue dying. If you save them, you ARE killing Bill."

No, it's the same thing. If you choose to let Bill live, you are sentencing the other 5 to death.

Unknown said...

"Well for one, there was nothing in the article to suggest that this was a feasible option. And even if it was, it is essentially the same as killing Bill; you are killing one to save 5. Whether or not the one killed was sick is irrelevant, since their lives still have the same value (more on this point later)."

I'm not giving any life more value than another. That's not the basis that the decision is made on. Its the fact that those people got sick, it's a natural thing that happens - you didn't make them sick. But, that person WILL die unless they get a transplant. Bill is not sick. If his life is not interfered with, he will NOT die. Why even drag him into the situation when it could be resolved within the five who have a problem?

And no matter how you look at it, it can't be a simple math problem. There are other issues to look at. How can it possibly be a logical idea to keep killing healthy people to save the sick?

And as for there being nothing in the article to suggest that it was even an option - did you read the same article I did? The point is that you sacrifice one life to give the organs to others. Why couldn't that sacrificed life be of someone who was already dying? You even pointed out that the lives theoretically have equal value.

"No, it's the same thing. If you choose to let Bill live, you are sentencing the other 5 to death."

So every time I don't sacrifice my life to save someone who needs a kidney transplant, or a heart transplant, or a liver transplant, I am actually killing that person? Wrong - I didn't give them whatever condition necessitated a transplant. And it's that condition that is killing them. You're losing what the actual definition of "to kill" is. You can't just go around applying the title of "killer" to every everything and everyone that had any indirect force on the person's death.

Anonymous said...

In response to christen:

I would like to restate my qualification that this is only my moral feelings on the matter, and i don't claim it to be universal. That said:

In this particular situation, I would still be innocent. I have not killed anyone. My ability to 'save' anyone rests on the faith that I have in the one holding us hostage. Do I believe that person will keep their word? If I do kill the one person and my kidnapper still decides to kill the others, I die with the guilt of murder on my hands, and the outcome is still no better. In the end, it is my own conscience and God I must answer to. And in the end, if anyone is murdered, it would be my kidnapper who bears the guilt. In this situation, I am not forced to 'play God.' Any guilt that I would have had knowing that I could have saved the others would be far outweighed (in my view) by the guilt that I would have if I in fact did make the choice to take someone's life. I am not coerced into playing the game because someone else makes the decision to enforce the rules thereof. That is the decision that bears the guilt. This is where this differs from the train question- in the train question, I am the only moral agent involved. The rules will be enforced either way. Once again, as this is an inherently somewhat ambiguous question, I don't expect it to be a perfect answer.

Unknown said...

I have to agree that there is also a difference between killing Bill to save 5 dying people. Although I'm sure it sucks to be dying(I've never experienced it), I'm also sure that there are not many people who given the place of one of the five dying people could bring themselves to ask Bill to sacrifice himself for them.

Ideally, in the hostage situation, if I were given a gun and told to shoot one of them, I'd probably shoot the guy holding us hostage. If for some reason it was impossible to shoot this crazy man, what it comes down to is I wouldn't want to have someone's blood directly on my hands. Personally, the only way I would be able to kill any of them was if someone had perhaps volunteered... and even then I don't think I could.

And the train case I think would be fairly straightforward for just about anyone. Well, as straightforward as murdering someone can be. If it has to happen, and you don't know the people, you simply send the train to kill the one person.

I don't however believe that a person's previous actions even should condemn them to being used to saved other people. Whether you have taken another life or any other heinous crime, it doesn't matter. Especially if you claim that we shouldn't "play God" in other circumstances, why because someone made a mistake. No matter how big.

Anonymous said...

How quickly some of y'all resort to utilitarian arguments in favor of murder!

Look, it still comes down to this: It is wrong to initiate aggression against any person for any reason. It does not matter if by committing murder, you have managed to save the life of more people than you killed--you had no right to commit murder. The need of others does not constitute a mortgage on the life of another.

More evil has been done through history from "Good Intentions" and "For the Greater Good" than anything else. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. have all argued great goals and good intentions to justify their activities.

Most arguments not based on a firm fundamental moral principle are mere contortions to try to convince others that what one wants to do is "right" when it is, in fact, not the case.